The main legal point established in the judgment is that the Assistant Registrar had no jurisdiction to decide the dispute over the election of office bearers and should have referred it to the prescribed authority under Section 25 of the Societies Registration Act.

Rakesh Tiwari, J.—Heard counsel for the parties and perused the record.

2. By means of this petition the petitioner challenges the order dated 20.11.2001 passed by respondent No. 1 holding that previous election of the Committee of Management of Adarsh Mahabir Junior High School Samiti were held beyond time hence invalid and directed that fresh election be held. He also annexed a list of voters for the election. The petitioner challenges his order as without jurisdiction.

3. According to writ petition there is a society known as Adarsh Mahabir Junior High School Samiti, which has a school known as Adarsh Bajarang Junior High School, Rampur. It was registered under Societies Registration Act on 15.7.1986. According to bye-laws the election of office bearers has to take place every 5 years. There is no separate Committee of Management for school. The elections were held on 14.7.1994, 13.7.1996 and lastly on 8.7.2001 before expiry of 5 years. In all these elections petitioner No. 2 Sri Lalji Dubey is said to have been elected as Manager. It is further asserted that the petitioner No. 2 filed result of the election in time and filed list of office bearers along with necessary documents and each time the registration of society was done for 5 years. Last renewal being of 15.7.2001. It is further stated that Sri Pal Pandey member of society was expelled from Society on 25.7.1995.

4. It is alleged that Sri Pandey raised a dispute about election of 8.7.2001 and set up a case that elections were held on 15.7.2001 by filing forged papers. The Assistant Registrar issued notices to both the parties. After several adjournments Sri Pal Pandey produced some record on 6.10.1991 regarding alleged election of 15.7.2001. The petitioner requested time for filing documents in rebuttal but Assistant Registrar did not allow any time to the petitioner and passed the order on 21.10.2001, which is impugned in this petition.

5. The Assistant Registrar in the order impugned held that election of office bearers of the Society ought to have been held on 23.12.1990, 23.12.1995 and 23.12.2000 as the Samiti had been constituted on 23.12.1985 and on that date office bearers were appointed.

6. The counsel for the petitioner submits that order is illegal and without authority as the Assistant Registrar had no jurisdiction to decide the dispute of election of office bearers and he had to refer it to the prescribed authority under Section 25 of the Societies Registration Act. He referred to the impugned order. In the first paragraph of the order it is stated that the Society was registered on 15.7.1986 and its renewal was done according to Section 3A of the Act, which is legal. Now another election has been set up by stating that election was held on 8.7.2001. Thus, there was no controversy about the election of 1991, 1996 and 2001 before the Assistant Registrar hence the Assistant Registrar had no jurisdiction to consider the validity of any of these elections held earlier particularly when on the basis of those election the certificate of registration of Society had been done and held valid. No dispute of those election was under consideration in these proceedings. He further submits that for disputes regarding earlier election or renewal or registration, no notice was issued by the Assistant Registrar. Reference is made to notice dated 21.7.2001 (Annexure-ii) that dispute before him was confirmed to election of 2001 only hence order of the Assistant Registrar about elections of 1991, 1996 and 2001 is wholly without jurisdiction. He has not set aside the renewals already made on the basis of those elections. There was no dispute about the election of those years before him and he had no right to dwell upon the validity of elections or renewals of registration of those years.

7. It is not disputed that election in this Society are to be held after 5 years according to bye-laws.

8. The counsel for the petitioner further submits that the Assistant Re